x`x`.
-----------------------------------------------------
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Bcc: The Approximately 150 Recipients of Our Weekly E-mail
Subject: EMERGENCY – Saving Great Salt Lake – Special Meeting
Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2018
Attachments:
RL-e331-Att111-Overview of the 2016-2017 Efforts of Our Great Salt Lake Working Group
RL-e331-Att222- Our 10/31/2016 Letter to Each of The 3 Members of the Mormon Presidency and to Each of The 12 Apostles Who, Together, Govern The Affairs of The LDS Church
RL-e331-Att333-Our 3/16/2017 Letter to Gov Herbert Attaching the 1/23/2017 Transcript of The State of Utah Div of Water Resources Announcement That The Bear River Pipeline Was NOT Needed
RL-e331-Att444-Our 4/5/2017 Letter (Mistakenly Dated 2016) to Each of The 3 Members of the Mormon Presidency and to Each of The 12 Apostles Who, Together, Govern The Affairs of The LDS Church
RL-e331-Att555-Our 7/22/2017 E-mail to Our Approx. 150 Members Announcing That The National Audubon Society Was Opening an SLC Office To Save Great Salt Lake INCLUDING Engaging in Litigation
[Editorial Note -- All five attachments can be found in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org – the first and fifth attachments comprise the posting in that section entitled “3/25/2017: Gov. Herbert Signs Great Salt Lake Death Warrant” and attachments two through four comprise that posting’s three embedded Adobe.pdf files available there for download.]
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!
Accordingly, our “Short Fuse” procedures described on the face of the second section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org are being invoked.
[They deal with emergency situations for which the next-available regular meeting would be too late. Which is the case, as described below, since the focus topic for our May 16 meeting had already been set and, in any event, that meeting occurs after an already-scheduled May 9-13 NYC stop that can probably be put to good use to take effective action.]
The emergency was triggered by the receipt this past Thursday of the notice that follows immediately below the end of this e-mail concerning a panel discussion at Westminster College on April 23 regarding the BEAR RIVER PIPELINE PROJECT.
[The Bear River provides the overwhelming majority of water to Great Salt Lake which, for many years, has been only approximately 50% full. And that’s before installation of the project’s dams and pipelines that will divert much of the Bear River flow into reservoirs which always have leaky bottoms and whose surfaces, of course, produce more additional water loss from evaporation.]
As many of you will recall, we used our “Short Fuse” procedure to form a Great Salt Lake Working Group 10/14/2016 - 4/5/2017 that took what we thought was effective action to kill the project.
Which comprised lawsuits in Federal District Court for either NYC or Washington DC against the LDS Church for fraud, and against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the EPA for Writs of Mandamus ordering them to do their duty.
[The alleged fraud comprised the widely-disseminated/publicized 1/23/2017 statement of the Deputy Director of the State of Utah Division of Water Resources that the Bear River Pipeline Project would NOT be needed UNTIL 2035 IF EVER because growing hay for export to China (which is what the overwhelming majority of Utah water is used for) is so wasteful that as farmland is converted to residential use, the demand for water ACTUALLY DECLINES!!! And it was quickly apparent that this highly-disseminated/publicized statement ONLY THREE DAYS after we posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org our intent to authorize our Salt Lake Working Group to undertake litigation in the wake of the LDS Church’s ignoring for 3 months our request that the LDS Church undertake a “legislative initiative” pursuant to Utah Constitution Art. VI Sec. 1 and Utah Code Title 20A Chapter 7 to halt the pipeline project -- was probably intended to induce environmentalists “to let down their guard” for protecting Great Salt Lake and its 118-square-mile Federally-Owned Migratory Bird Refuge that is a home for millions of birds and is also a host for millions of migratory birds, including the nearly-extinct Bald Eagle, symbol of the nation.]
The key, of course, would be calling the 15 leaders of the LDS Church (as well as the Utah Governor and legislative leaders and State of Utah Division of Water Resources officials) to account with sworn depositions ordered by Federal Judges in NYC or Washington DC.
The prospect of which, presumably, would have caused the LDS Church to call a halt to the Bear River Pipeline Project in order to preserve its reputation for being a friend of the environment (as it trumpets in its weekly national telecast entitled “Music & The Spoken Word”).
[Does anyone think for a moment that the Utah pols would have required the LDS Church to carry through with a “legislative initiative” before the Utah pols killed the project???]
*****
The attachments to this e-mail chronicle the 2016-2017 efforts of our GSL Working Group.
And our (now apparently premature) “victory lap” when the National Audubon Society, whose CEO had been one of the Cc-Addressees on all of our letters to the LDS Church, the Utah Governor, etc., announced 7/15/2017 that it was establishing a Salt Lake City Office to protect saline lakes in the Western U.S. with primary emphasis on GSL, AND TO ENGAGE IN LITIGATION TO PROTECT THEM!!!
The first and fifth attachments comprise, in two parts, the posting entitled “3/25/2017: Gov. Herbert Signs Great Salt Lake Death Warrant” located in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org labelled “Gen Info + Info Re Next Meeting [date of meeting]” -- and the attachments two through four comprise the bulletin-board posting’s three embedded Adobe.pdf files available there for download.)
**********
PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY
If you would like to help, please hit your Reply button and provide your availability during the next 10 days to attend an emergency meeting of our GSL Working Group.
[I will match schedules to maximize attendance.]
We will discuss, inter alia --
(1) Assessing what happened (and who can help do what in this regard), and
(2) Assessing what can be done (and who can help in this regard).
NB: Yours Truly is already scheduled to stop in NYC May 9-13 and can try to schedule meetings with the CEO of the National Audubon Society and his General Counsel.
[Though based on their apparent failure to take effective action, it may be more productive to assess from both general sources and our own friends who might be likely to make major contributions for such a cause and make appeals directly to them to contribute toward the cost of litigation. However, it may be wise to first afford the National Audubon Society an opportunity to explain whether their 7/15/2017 announcement had been prompted by their CEO’s receipt of all of the legal research that we had provided, or whether they had merely stumbled into that decision and would now be amenable to undertaking the litigation themselves.]
BTW, in case you are wondering why time is “short fuse,” it is NOT the running of a “statute of limitations” on fraud, since Federal Court procedure in “diversity” cases (where, as described in our legal analysis, all of the plaintiffs would be CITIZENS of the 58 countries in which the LDS Church does NOT even have missions and RESIDENTS of their UN Embassies in NYC or of their Embassies in Washington DC which, under international law, ARE FOREIGN SOIL) employs the local “statute of limitations” -- which, in the case of fraud, is 6 years in New York State and 3 years in Washington DC -- and, if under “conflict of law” principles the Federal Court decides to look at Utah law, it also provides for 3 years.
INSTEAD, as described in the attachments, the problem is that an injunction is an EQUITABLE remedy (what is fair, rather than what the law provides), rather than a LEGAL remedy (what the law provides, rather than what is fair).
AND as the State of Utah undertakes financial obligations pursuant to binding contracts, there is a so-called “shifting of the equities” which may, with any passing moment, mean that calling a halt to the Bear River Pipeline Project may be out of reach.
I hope all of you will help to cope with this emergency!!!
Your friend,
John K.
PS -- To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."
NB: Please do NOT block our e-mail because you are too embarrassed to request a deletion -- 10 of our approximately 150 regular e-mail recipients use Comcast.net which has an algorithm blocking all e-mails from a website for which a certain percentage of recipients have requested blockage AND 3 of our regular meeting attendees who use Comcast.net now can NOT receive our weekly e-mails.
*************************************
Some Westminster College students have organized a panel discussion on Bear River development for April 23 at 6pm for their senior capstone class. They were able to get a compelling bunch of panelists (see below) and Rod Decker will moderate. Please come and pass this around to others.
Name: The Bear River: Thinking Below the Surface
Location: Westminster College’s Gore Auditorium
Date/Time: April 23 @ 6 - 7:30 pm
Topics:
What is the Bear River Diversion?
How will Utah supply the future water demands?
How would a diversion affect surrounding ecosystems and wildlife?
What are the environmental impacts of the diversion?
Who is impacted by this project?
Panelists:
Marisa Egbert - Bear River Development Project Manager, Utah Division of Water Resources
Zach Frankel - Executive Director of Utah Rivers Council
Jeff Richards - Vice President of Rocky Mountain Power
Bonnie Baxter - Director of the Great Salt Lake Institute and Professor of Biology at Westminster College (or whatever title you prefer)
Steve Handy, Representative from Utah's 16th district, and vocal proponent of the development, has expressed interest but has not yet committed to being on the panel.
Moderated by Rod Decker
Time for Q&A will be provided at the end of the panel discussion. Snacks and refreshments will be supplied!
[Reading Liberally Editorial Note - Rod Decker retired Thurs 9/14/2017 after 37 years as a reporter for KUTV Channel 2.]
EMERGENCY MEETING: Saving Great Salt Lake (Yet Again!!!)
FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN Real Estate
.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Foreign Soil
From: Pat
Date: Sat, March 31, 2018 4:09 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John,
I have just finished reading your weekly e-mail of earlier today which had as its subject “EMERGENCY – Saving Great Salt Lake – Special Meeting.”
I was intrigued with your claim in the fourth paragraph from the end as you are talking about “statute of limitations” considerations, that under international law embassies are “foreign soil” of the country which owns the embassy, and not part of the country in which the embassy is located.
I did a quick Google search for “embassy foreign soil” and most of the top “hits” claim that you are confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
Would you care to comment?
Regards,
Pat
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN Real Estate
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, April 1, 2018 2:47 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pat,
Thank you very much for your e-mail.
BTW, you might be amused that I considered waiting until after midnight to send this reply because you might be left wondering whether it is an “April fools’ joke.”
I trust you will treat it as deadly serious.
There are two points to be made concerning your query.
********************
First Point - FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN Real Estate
The point being CLAIMED in the websites you reference is that I (and others) are confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
In fact, the authors of the websites you cite are the ones who are guilty of confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
Which only proves what our group has always concluded -- that websites are only the opinion of WHOMEVER and are often only as good as the quality of their footnotes.
Which only proves that our group has always concluded -- that the internet “echo chamber” is often AS BAD AS the Mainstream Media “echo chamber”!!!
When I used the term “foreign soil” to describe embassies, I was using the universally-used term employed at Harvard Law School 1964-1967 to describe the status of foreign embassies.
[BTW Harvard Law School was probably the only law school in the nation at that time to have an International Legal Studies Center, and probably the only law school in the nation at that time whose mandated first-year course in real property was STILL a full year so that it could cover in excruciating detail the old English Common Law “estates in land” which include such concepts as “fee simple” and “fee tail” about which some of your cited websites are obviously ignorant.]
Some quick Q&A’s to make the answers more palatable (and, hopefully, understandable).
Question 1
What is an ambassador???
Answer 1
S/he is a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY’S representative (OF WHICH THERE IS ONLY ONE) sent to another SOVEREIGN COUNTRY (such as the United States) or to a group of SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES (such as the United Nations in NYC).
Question 2
Is the ambassador the only person with DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY???
Answer 2
No. The ambassador is usually accompanied by diplomatic assistants who also cannot be prosecuted for any criminal acts!!! [They can only be deported for illegal/undesirable behavior.]
However, this does NOT mean that everyone on the ambassador’s staff (for example, local citizenry hired as clerks or secretaries) has “DIPLOMATIC immunity.”
BTW, the reason for the ancient doctrine of “DIPLOMATIC immunity” was to prevent a receiving country from thwarting the purpose of having ambassadors by imprisoning an ambassador on “trumped up” charges.
And BTW, “DIPLOMATIC immunity” for United Nations Ambassadors caused massive traffic jams in NYC for decades as ambassadors felt free to park their limos in traffic lanes.
That problem was solved (probably by no-nonsense Mayor Rudy Giuliani) by decreeing, if memory serves, that the ambassadors and their diplomatic assistants may have “DIPLOMATIC immunity” from arrest and prosecution for illegal parking, BUT THEIR LIMOS DO NOT HAVE “DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY” FROM TOWING.
Question 3
What is the difference between an “embassy” and a “consulate” such as the Russian consulate that was just closed in Seattle?
Answer 3
An “embassy” comprises the real estate containing the work space of an ambassador and her/his staff, and often containing their living quarters.
Please remember from Q&A-1 that there is only ONE ambassador to a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY (e.g., to the U.S.) or to a group of SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES (e.g., the United Nations).
If the sending country wants, for convenience, a representative ELSEWHERE for other FUNCTIONS, such as an office in Seattle that is authorized, for example, to process visa requests, that representative is known as a “Consul” and her/his office is known as a “Consulate.”
Question 4
Do Consuls and their assistants have “DIPLOMATIC immunity”?
Answer 4
No. Consuls have “CONSULAR immunity” which is NOT as extensive as “DIPLOMATIC immunity.”
Question 5
Who owns an “embassy” and/or a “consulate”?
Answer 5
Presumably the foreign country has the legal right to occupy its “embassy” and any “consulates.”
The character of that legal right can, of course, take almost any of the many of the types of “estate in land” recognized under English Common Law.
For example --
1. The legal right might comprise “fee simple” which is outright ownership.
2. The legal right might comprise a “lease” (of which there are many types of so-called “tenancies” under English Common Law -- such as a “joint tenancy,” a “tenancy in common,” a “tenancy by the entirety,” etc., etc. -- all of which are distinctly different from each other).
3. A “fee tail” which is outright current ownership with restrictions concerning sale.
4. A "life estate" which is the occupant's right to occupy the premises until death, whereupon title immediately lodges in someone designated by the previous owner.
5. An "estate pur autre vie" which is the occupant's right to occupy the premises until the death of someone else, whereupon title immediately lodges in someone designated by the previous owner.
6. And many other types which would be too boring to describe, such as outright ownership that is forfeitable under certain circumstances.
Indeed, one of your websites purports to be authored by a law firm which disgraces itself with a question that they obviously intended to be rhetorical -- how can an apartment building contain foreign-sovereign real estate???!!!
Obviously that law firm is ignorant of high-rise condominiums!!!
Which do indeed comprise real property, even those that are on upper floors!!!
Need it be said that each of the upper-floor condominiums is owned in one of the many forms of “estates in land” under English Common Law???
[Is there a Good Samaritan who will warn that law firm’s malpractice insurer of the firm’s incompetence??? I don’t have time to “chase that rabbit.”]
Question 6
Is the foreign government THE SOVEREIGN of its embassy???
Answer 6
ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
Its guards (typically Marines in the case of U.S. embassies) have the authority, and responsibility, to protect an embassy from any and all perceived threats.
ONLY THE AMBASSADOR, as the SOLE representative of the FOREIGN SOVEREIGN, can give permission for any breaches.
For example, if there is a fire in an embassy building, the host country’s fire fighters do NOT have the right to enter the embassy grounds to fight the fire, even if it threatens surrounding non-embassy property!!!
In such a situation, the host country’s fire fighters MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION of the ambassador to enter the embassy grounds to fight the fire AND THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT PERMISSION!!!
Question 7
The reason for the fire-fighting example in Q&A-6???
Answer 7
Most Hollywood movie fans are familiar with images of U.S. Marines guarding U.S. embassies abroad.
And how the host-country police HAVE NO RIGHT to enter the FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN EMBASSY!!!
That is accurate.
Only the ambassador and her/his security forces have authority INSIDE the FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN EMBASSY, unless the ambassador requests help from the host country, similarly to how s/he might (OR MIGHT NOT) request help from the host country to fight a fire.
However, under international law, the host country HAS THE OBLIGATION to protect the embassy WITH ALL MEANS POSSIBLE that can be deployed OUTSIDE the embassy.
But if they are overpowered and the embassy is breached, the host-country security forces need the permission of the ambassador to “carry the fight” inside the embassy grounds.
Question 8
Is the foreign country THE SOVEREIGN of its consulates???
Answer 8
No.
[Though, of course, it would not be illegal for the United States to grant a foreign country SOVEREIGNTY over one of its consulates, similarly to the way that the United States has granted many Native-American Tribes SOVEREIGNTY over their “reservations” which is why American laws, such as anti-gambling laws, do not apply there. However, I have never heard of a case in which the U.S. or any other country has granted, or been granted, SOVEREIGNTY over a consulate.]
*****
Real Life Case Study -- The U.S. Embassy in Israel
On 1/31/1949, U.S. President Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel. The U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel.
Ever since, the United States has maintained an EMBASSY in Tel Aviv even though Israel moved its capital to Jerusalem in 1980.
[The U.S. has ONLY maintained a CONSULATE in Israel’s capital.]
Many U.S. Presidents campaigned on a promise to move America’s EMBASSY to Jerusalem, but until last December, none of them took action to honor those promises.
Last December, President Trump announced that the U.S. would move its EMBASSY to Jerusalem.
HOWEVER, after a month or so, it had become obvious that the U.S. State Department would “slow walk” the transfer until President Trump had left office to insure it would never happen.
ACCORDINGLY, President Trump announced that the transfer would occur on May 14, 2018, the 70th Anniversary of Israel’s Declaration of Independence!!!
How did President Trump conjure such magic???
Trumping (pun intended) his State Department???
He is turning, at least temporarily, America’s Jerusalem CONSULATE into an EMBASSY!!!
And America’s Tel Aviv EMBASSY into a CONSULATE!!!
With the U.S. ambassador and as much of his staff as will fit, moving into the Jerusalem facility.
And the U.S. Consular staff, etc., moving to the Tel Aviv facility.
THE REASONS FOR THIS CASE STUDY???
The U.S. Ambassador David Friedman and his diplomatic (vs. clerical) staff will continue to enjoy DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY despite the move.
The U.S. Consul Donald Blume and his consular (vs. clerical) staff will continue to enjoy CONSULAR IMMUNITY despite the move.
On May 14, 2018, the JERUSALEM FACILITY will acquire AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY.
And on May 14, 2018, the TEL AVIV FACILITY will lose AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY.
*****
Second Real Life Case Study -- Julian Assange and Wikileaks
Salient facts --
1. Julian Assange, originally and still an Australian citizen, founded Wikileaks in 2006 and has headed it ever since.
2. From April - November, 2010, Wikileaks published 750,000 highly-classified U.S. Department of Defense documents leaked by Army Intelligence Specialist Bradley Edward Manning (who was sentenced by court-martial to 35 years (reduced to 7 years served by President Obama) and who, in 2013, announced through his attorney that he had undergone a sex-change operation to become Chelsea Manning).
3. In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange for alleged assault and rape.
4. Assange surrendered to U.K. police 12/10/2010.
5. After losing in 2012 his challenge to extradition to Sweden (during which he claimed that he did not fear the Swedish charges, but feared extradition from Sweden to the U.S. for charges instituted by the Obama Administration over the Wikileaks publication of the Chelsea Manning materials) he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
6. He was immediately granted asylum by the Ecuadorian Government and has lived in its Ecuadorian Embassy in London ever since.
7. While living in asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange/Wikileaks published 7/4/2016 e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server, published 7/22/2016 e-mails from the Democratic National Committee about sabotaging Bernie Sanders primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, and published 10/7/2016 over 2,000 damaging e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta.
8. On 1/11/2018, it was announced that Assange had been granted Ecuadorian citizenship on 12/12/2017.
Some points for the websites that claim that I (and others) confuse “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty” and that embassies are NOT “sovereign foreign soil/real estate” --
1. There has never been a claim that Assange is an Ecuadorian DIPLOMAT accredited to (and accepted by) the U.K. Government!!!
2. So if the Ecuadorian Government does NOT have SOVEREIGNTY over its Embassy in London (but only has DIPLOMATIC immunity for its accredited and accepted diplomats located there), why haven’t the British authorities long since obtained a warrant to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest Assange for jumping bail -- and following any prison sentence for jumping bail, have long since extradited him to Sweden or the U.S. or to whomever else wants him???
********************
The Second Point To Be Made Concerning Your E-mail - THE IRRELEVANCE OF EMBASSY SOVEREIGNTY TO THE GREAT SALT LAKE LITIGATION
I must confess to getting carried away!!!
The paragraph in yesterday-morning’s weekly e-mail about which you were inquiring, was addressing the question of when “the statute of limitations” would run on the alleged fraud of the Mormon Church.
During the course of which, the parenthetical in that paragraph referred to the fact that before meeting with friends in the San Francisco Office of one of the world’s largest multi-national law firms a year ago on 3/31/2017, I had generated a list of 58 member countries of the United Nations that, according to the official website of the Mormon Church, do not even have Mormon missionaries.
The reason for generating that list was to illustrate for my San Francisco friends how our Reading Liberally Working Group had determined that the LDS Church could be sued in Federal Court in either NYC or Washington DC employing “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction.
Such jurisdiction requires complete diversity between (i.e., no overlap of, or duplication in) the citizenship of all plaintiffs vs. the citizenship of all defendants.
So yes, I was getting carried away with the unnecessary comment about embassies being “foreign soil” which ONLY relates to the RESIDENCY of the prospective plaintiffs.
I confess!!! The only relevant issue is the CITIZENSHIP of the prospective plaintiffs!!!
Mea culpa!!!
********************
FINAL COMMENTS
It pains me greatly to be forced to involve the LDS Church in this imbroglio.
Although not Mormon myself, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the LDS Church.
And never fail to enjoy their weekly national telecasts entitled “Music & The Spoken Word” whose video track features almost solely beautiful views of nature.
Unfortunately, it appears obvious that the LDS Church favors (or at least condones) destroying Great Salt Lake even though the State of Utah Division of Water Resources has determined that GSL’s destruction (via The Bear River Pipeline Project) is NOT NEEDED UNTIL 2035 IF EVER because growing hay for export to China (which is what the overwhelming majority of Utah water is used for) is so wasteful that as farmland is converted to residential use, the demand for water ACTUALLY DECLINES!!!
Just like the little kid in the famous painting asking “Shoeless Joe Jackson” of the Chicago “Black Sox” I would like to ask the 15 leaders of the LDS Church to “say it ain’t so”!!! And that they do not support this travesty!!! In which case, does anyone believe for a moment the Utah pols would not kill the project???
Your friend,
John K.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Foreign Soil
From: Pat
Date: Sat, March 31, 2018 4:09 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John,
I have just finished reading your weekly e-mail of earlier today which had as its subject “EMERGENCY – Saving Great Salt Lake – Special Meeting.”
I was intrigued with your claim in the fourth paragraph from the end as you are talking about “statute of limitations” considerations, that under international law embassies are “foreign soil” of the country which owns the embassy, and not part of the country in which the embassy is located.
I did a quick Google search for “embassy foreign soil” and most of the top “hits” claim that you are confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
Would you care to comment?
Regards,
Pat
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN Real Estate
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, April 1, 2018 2:47 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pat,
Thank you very much for your e-mail.
BTW, you might be amused that I considered waiting until after midnight to send this reply because you might be left wondering whether it is an “April fools’ joke.”
I trust you will treat it as deadly serious.
There are two points to be made concerning your query.
********************
First Point - FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN Real Estate
The point being CLAIMED in the websites you reference is that I (and others) are confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
In fact, the authors of the websites you cite are the ones who are guilty of confusing “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty.”
Which only proves what our group has always concluded -- that websites are only the opinion of WHOMEVER and are often only as good as the quality of their footnotes.
Which only proves that our group has always concluded -- that the internet “echo chamber” is often AS BAD AS the Mainstream Media “echo chamber”!!!
When I used the term “foreign soil” to describe embassies, I was using the universally-used term employed at Harvard Law School 1964-1967 to describe the status of foreign embassies.
[BTW Harvard Law School was probably the only law school in the nation at that time to have an International Legal Studies Center, and probably the only law school in the nation at that time whose mandated first-year course in real property was STILL a full year so that it could cover in excruciating detail the old English Common Law “estates in land” which include such concepts as “fee simple” and “fee tail” about which some of your cited websites are obviously ignorant.]
Some quick Q&A’s to make the answers more palatable (and, hopefully, understandable).
Question 1
What is an ambassador???
Answer 1
S/he is a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY’S representative (OF WHICH THERE IS ONLY ONE) sent to another SOVEREIGN COUNTRY (such as the United States) or to a group of SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES (such as the United Nations in NYC).
Question 2
Is the ambassador the only person with DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY???
Answer 2
No. The ambassador is usually accompanied by diplomatic assistants who also cannot be prosecuted for any criminal acts!!! [They can only be deported for illegal/undesirable behavior.]
However, this does NOT mean that everyone on the ambassador’s staff (for example, local citizenry hired as clerks or secretaries) has “DIPLOMATIC immunity.”
BTW, the reason for the ancient doctrine of “DIPLOMATIC immunity” was to prevent a receiving country from thwarting the purpose of having ambassadors by imprisoning an ambassador on “trumped up” charges.
And BTW, “DIPLOMATIC immunity” for United Nations Ambassadors caused massive traffic jams in NYC for decades as ambassadors felt free to park their limos in traffic lanes.
That problem was solved (probably by no-nonsense Mayor Rudy Giuliani) by decreeing, if memory serves, that the ambassadors and their diplomatic assistants may have “DIPLOMATIC immunity” from arrest and prosecution for illegal parking, BUT THEIR LIMOS DO NOT HAVE “DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY” FROM TOWING.
Question 3
What is the difference between an “embassy” and a “consulate” such as the Russian consulate that was just closed in Seattle?
Answer 3
An “embassy” comprises the real estate containing the work space of an ambassador and her/his staff, and often containing their living quarters.
Please remember from Q&A-1 that there is only ONE ambassador to a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY (e.g., to the U.S.) or to a group of SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES (e.g., the United Nations).
If the sending country wants, for convenience, a representative ELSEWHERE for other FUNCTIONS, such as an office in Seattle that is authorized, for example, to process visa requests, that representative is known as a “Consul” and her/his office is known as a “Consulate.”
Question 4
Do Consuls and their assistants have “DIPLOMATIC immunity”?
Answer 4
No. Consuls have “CONSULAR immunity” which is NOT as extensive as “DIPLOMATIC immunity.”
Question 5
Who owns an “embassy” and/or a “consulate”?
Answer 5
Presumably the foreign country has the legal right to occupy its “embassy” and any “consulates.”
The character of that legal right can, of course, take almost any of the many of the types of “estate in land” recognized under English Common Law.
For example --
1. The legal right might comprise “fee simple” which is outright ownership.
2. The legal right might comprise a “lease” (of which there are many types of so-called “tenancies” under English Common Law -- such as a “joint tenancy,” a “tenancy in common,” a “tenancy by the entirety,” etc., etc. -- all of which are distinctly different from each other).
3. A “fee tail” which is outright current ownership with restrictions concerning sale.
4. A "life estate" which is the occupant's right to occupy the premises until death, whereupon title immediately lodges in someone designated by the previous owner.
5. An "estate pur autre vie" which is the occupant's right to occupy the premises until the death of someone else, whereupon title immediately lodges in someone designated by the previous owner.
6. And many other types which would be too boring to describe, such as outright ownership that is forfeitable under certain circumstances.
Indeed, one of your websites purports to be authored by a law firm which disgraces itself with a question that they obviously intended to be rhetorical -- how can an apartment building contain foreign-sovereign real estate???!!!
Obviously that law firm is ignorant of high-rise condominiums!!!
Which do indeed comprise real property, even those that are on upper floors!!!
Need it be said that each of the upper-floor condominiums is owned in one of the many forms of “estates in land” under English Common Law???
[Is there a Good Samaritan who will warn that law firm’s malpractice insurer of the firm’s incompetence??? I don’t have time to “chase that rabbit.”]
Question 6
Is the foreign government THE SOVEREIGN of its embassy???
Answer 6
ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
Its guards (typically Marines in the case of U.S. embassies) have the authority, and responsibility, to protect an embassy from any and all perceived threats.
ONLY THE AMBASSADOR, as the SOLE representative of the FOREIGN SOVEREIGN, can give permission for any breaches.
For example, if there is a fire in an embassy building, the host country’s fire fighters do NOT have the right to enter the embassy grounds to fight the fire, even if it threatens surrounding non-embassy property!!!
In such a situation, the host country’s fire fighters MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION of the ambassador to enter the embassy grounds to fight the fire AND THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT PERMISSION!!!
Question 7
The reason for the fire-fighting example in Q&A-6???
Answer 7
Most Hollywood movie fans are familiar with images of U.S. Marines guarding U.S. embassies abroad.
And how the host-country police HAVE NO RIGHT to enter the FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN EMBASSY!!!
That is accurate.
Only the ambassador and her/his security forces have authority INSIDE the FOREIGN-SOVEREIGN EMBASSY, unless the ambassador requests help from the host country, similarly to how s/he might (OR MIGHT NOT) request help from the host country to fight a fire.
However, under international law, the host country HAS THE OBLIGATION to protect the embassy WITH ALL MEANS POSSIBLE that can be deployed OUTSIDE the embassy.
But if they are overpowered and the embassy is breached, the host-country security forces need the permission of the ambassador to “carry the fight” inside the embassy grounds.
Question 8
Is the foreign country THE SOVEREIGN of its consulates???
Answer 8
No.
[Though, of course, it would not be illegal for the United States to grant a foreign country SOVEREIGNTY over one of its consulates, similarly to the way that the United States has granted many Native-American Tribes SOVEREIGNTY over their “reservations” which is why American laws, such as anti-gambling laws, do not apply there. However, I have never heard of a case in which the U.S. or any other country has granted, or been granted, SOVEREIGNTY over a consulate.]
*****
Real Life Case Study -- The U.S. Embassy in Israel
On 1/31/1949, U.S. President Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel. The U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel.
Ever since, the United States has maintained an EMBASSY in Tel Aviv even though Israel moved its capital to Jerusalem in 1980.
[The U.S. has ONLY maintained a CONSULATE in Israel’s capital.]
Many U.S. Presidents campaigned on a promise to move America’s EMBASSY to Jerusalem, but until last December, none of them took action to honor those promises.
Last December, President Trump announced that the U.S. would move its EMBASSY to Jerusalem.
HOWEVER, after a month or so, it had become obvious that the U.S. State Department would “slow walk” the transfer until President Trump had left office to insure it would never happen.
ACCORDINGLY, President Trump announced that the transfer would occur on May 14, 2018, the 70th Anniversary of Israel’s Declaration of Independence!!!
How did President Trump conjure such magic???
Trumping (pun intended) his State Department???
He is turning, at least temporarily, America’s Jerusalem CONSULATE into an EMBASSY!!!
And America’s Tel Aviv EMBASSY into a CONSULATE!!!
With the U.S. ambassador and as much of his staff as will fit, moving into the Jerusalem facility.
And the U.S. Consular staff, etc., moving to the Tel Aviv facility.
THE REASONS FOR THIS CASE STUDY???
The U.S. Ambassador David Friedman and his diplomatic (vs. clerical) staff will continue to enjoy DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY despite the move.
The U.S. Consul Donald Blume and his consular (vs. clerical) staff will continue to enjoy CONSULAR IMMUNITY despite the move.
On May 14, 2018, the JERUSALEM FACILITY will acquire AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY.
And on May 14, 2018, the TEL AVIV FACILITY will lose AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY.
*****
Second Real Life Case Study -- Julian Assange and Wikileaks
Salient facts --
1. Julian Assange, originally and still an Australian citizen, founded Wikileaks in 2006 and has headed it ever since.
2. From April - November, 2010, Wikileaks published 750,000 highly-classified U.S. Department of Defense documents leaked by Army Intelligence Specialist Bradley Edward Manning (who was sentenced by court-martial to 35 years (reduced to 7 years served by President Obama) and who, in 2013, announced through his attorney that he had undergone a sex-change operation to become Chelsea Manning).
3. In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange for alleged assault and rape.
4. Assange surrendered to U.K. police 12/10/2010.
5. After losing in 2012 his challenge to extradition to Sweden (during which he claimed that he did not fear the Swedish charges, but feared extradition from Sweden to the U.S. for charges instituted by the Obama Administration over the Wikileaks publication of the Chelsea Manning materials) he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
6. He was immediately granted asylum by the Ecuadorian Government and has lived in its Ecuadorian Embassy in London ever since.
7. While living in asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange/Wikileaks published 7/4/2016 e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server, published 7/22/2016 e-mails from the Democratic National Committee about sabotaging Bernie Sanders primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, and published 10/7/2016 over 2,000 damaging e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta.
8. On 1/11/2018, it was announced that Assange had been granted Ecuadorian citizenship on 12/12/2017.
Some points for the websites that claim that I (and others) confuse “diplomatic immunity” with “sovereignty” and that embassies are NOT “sovereign foreign soil/real estate” --
1. There has never been a claim that Assange is an Ecuadorian DIPLOMAT accredited to (and accepted by) the U.K. Government!!!
2. So if the Ecuadorian Government does NOT have SOVEREIGNTY over its Embassy in London (but only has DIPLOMATIC immunity for its accredited and accepted diplomats located there), why haven’t the British authorities long since obtained a warrant to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest Assange for jumping bail -- and following any prison sentence for jumping bail, have long since extradited him to Sweden or the U.S. or to whomever else wants him???
********************
The Second Point To Be Made Concerning Your E-mail - THE IRRELEVANCE OF EMBASSY SOVEREIGNTY TO THE GREAT SALT LAKE LITIGATION
I must confess to getting carried away!!!
The paragraph in yesterday-morning’s weekly e-mail about which you were inquiring, was addressing the question of when “the statute of limitations” would run on the alleged fraud of the Mormon Church.
During the course of which, the parenthetical in that paragraph referred to the fact that before meeting with friends in the San Francisco Office of one of the world’s largest multi-national law firms a year ago on 3/31/2017, I had generated a list of 58 member countries of the United Nations that, according to the official website of the Mormon Church, do not even have Mormon missionaries.
The reason for generating that list was to illustrate for my San Francisco friends how our Reading Liberally Working Group had determined that the LDS Church could be sued in Federal Court in either NYC or Washington DC employing “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction.
Such jurisdiction requires complete diversity between (i.e., no overlap of, or duplication in) the citizenship of all plaintiffs vs. the citizenship of all defendants.
So yes, I was getting carried away with the unnecessary comment about embassies being “foreign soil” which ONLY relates to the RESIDENCY of the prospective plaintiffs.
I confess!!! The only relevant issue is the CITIZENSHIP of the prospective plaintiffs!!!
Mea culpa!!!
********************
FINAL COMMENTS
It pains me greatly to be forced to involve the LDS Church in this imbroglio.
Although not Mormon myself, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the LDS Church.
And never fail to enjoy their weekly national telecasts entitled “Music & The Spoken Word” whose video track features almost solely beautiful views of nature.
Unfortunately, it appears obvious that the LDS Church favors (or at least condones) destroying Great Salt Lake even though the State of Utah Division of Water Resources has determined that GSL’s destruction (via The Bear River Pipeline Project) is NOT NEEDED UNTIL 2035 IF EVER because growing hay for export to China (which is what the overwhelming majority of Utah water is used for) is so wasteful that as farmland is converted to residential use, the demand for water ACTUALLY DECLINES!!!
Just like the little kid in the famous painting asking “Shoeless Joe Jackson” of the Chicago “Black Sox” I would like to ask the 15 leaders of the LDS Church to “say it ain’t so”!!! And that they do not support this travesty!!! In which case, does anyone believe for a moment the Utah pols would not kill the project???
Your friend,
John K.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests